Attorney-General's Reference No 1 of 2022

The Attorney-General referred a question of law to the Supreme Court of Tasmania concerning the interpretation of section 110A of the *Firearms Act 1996* (Tas). The dispute centred on whether section 110A, which creates a conclusive presumption of trafficking in firearms, could be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that the accused did not intend to traffic in firearms. The question was posed by the Attorney-General following an acquittal in the Magistrates Court.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the presumption of trafficking established by section 110A of the *Firearms Act 1996* (Tas) is a rebuttable presumption or a conclusive presumption. Specifically, the Court had to determine if evidence of a lack of intent to traffic could be adduced to defeat a charge under that section.

Pearce J and Martin AJ held that section 110A establishes a conclusive presumption. Their Honours reasoned that the plain wording of the section, particularly the phrase "is taken to have trafficked," indicates that once the elements of the offence are established, the presumption of trafficking arises and cannot be challenged by evidence to the contrary. The Court concluded that the legislative intent was to create a strict liability offence in this regard, meaning that proof of the prohibited conduct, irrespective of subjective intent, is sufficient for conviction.